PDA

View Full Version : The Normal A1C Level


fgummett
08-04-2009, 08:07 AM
Some words of wisdom from David Mendosa -- Wednesday, February 11, 2009 : Diabetes - The Normal A1C Level (http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/59130/normal-a1c-level)
You want to control your diabetes as much as possible. You wouldn't be reading this if you didn't.

So you regularly check your A1C level. This is the best measurement of our blood glucose control that we have now. It tells us what percentage of our hemoglobin -- the protein in our red blood cells that carry oxygen -- has glucose sticking to it. The less glucose that remains in our bloodstream rather than going to work in the cells that need it the better we feel now and the better our health will continue to be.

As we are able to control our diabetes better and better, the reasonable goal is to bring our A1C levels down to normal -- the A1C level that people who don't have diabetes have. But before we can even set that goal, we have to know what the target is.

The trouble with setting that target is that different experts tell us that quite different A1C levels are "normal." They tell us that different levels are normal -- but I have never heard of actual studies of normal A1C levels among people without diabetes -- until now.

The major laboratories that test our levels often say that the normal range is 4.0 to 6.0. They base that range on an old standard chemistry text, Tietz Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry.

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial or DCCT, one of the two largest and most important studies of people with diabetes, said that 6.0 was a normal level. But the other key study, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study or UKPDS, which compared conventional and intensive therapy in more than 5,000 newly diagnosed people with type 2 diabetes, said that 6.2 is the normal level.

Those levels, while unsubstantiated, are close. But then comes along one of my heroes, Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, the author of the key text of very low-carb eating for people with diabetes, Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. Dr. Bernstein himself developed type 1 diabetes in 1946 at the age of 12.

"For my patients...a truly normal HgbA1C ranges from 4.2 percent to 4.6 percent," he writes on page 54 of the third edition of that book. "Mine is consistently 4.5 percent." Then in his July 30, 2008, telecast he reiterated that as far as he has been able to determine, a normal A1C is 4.2 to 4.6.

What Dr. Bernstein says is normal is so at odds with the other experts that at least a year ago I determined to find scientific proof of what a normal A1C level actually is. It turned out to be a lot more difficult to find than I ever imagined.

My personal quest for a normal A1C level and that of my favorite Certified Diabetes Educator drove that search.

When I learned in 1994 that I had diabetes and that my A1C level was 14.4, I was gradually able to bring it way down. Lately I have been doing everything I can think of to try to get my A1C down to normal. But in 2008 my level in nine separate A1C tests always ranged from 5.2 to 5.6. That's far from normal, according to Dr. Bernstein.

My favorite Certified Diabetes Educator is also doing everything she can to get a normal A1C level. And she doesn't even have diabetes -- which she double-checked by taking a glucose tolerance test -- but her most recent A1C was 5.4.

What could we be doing that is so wrong? Each of us is thin, eat a very healthy diet, exercise a lot, take care of our teeth and gums, which is a major source of infection. Could we have other infections or stresses that prevent us from getting our A1C levels down to "normal"?

It turns out that my favorite Certified Diabetes Educator and I have normal A1C levels after all. I learned this just yesterday when I finally tracked down actual research determining what normal levels are.

A friend suggested that I contact the people who run the standardization program for A1C testing. This organization affiliated with the University of Missouri is the NGSP. Those initial used to stand for the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program. But now that the NGSP is international, they changed the name.

So I called Curt Rohlfing, the NGSP data manager and technical writer/research analyst at the University of Missouri. And finally hit pay dirt in my quest for learning what a normal A1C is.

Curt told me that every three or four years his lab at the university studies a group of people who don't have diabetes to scientifically determine what a normal A1C level is. The results from one study to the next are always close, Curt told me. In their most recent study they tested 29 people who lived nearby in central Missouri.

I asked how they knew if the people they tested didn't have diabetes. "Because we did [glucose tolerance tests] on them, they had no prior history of diabetes, and none of them were obese," Curt replied.

So what were their levels? They ranged from 4.5 to 6, Curt replied. That's at plus or minus 3 standard deviations.

I am certainly no statistician. But Curt tells me that it includes about 99 percent of the values.

The range is narrower -- 4.7 to 5.7 -- at plus or minus 2 standard deviations. This includes about 95 percent of the values.

"The upper limit is the more important one," Curt explained further. "The lower limit doesn't convey as much meaning."

They also see "a little skew toward the high end of the range, a bit of tailing at the high side," Curt continued. In fact, levels below 4.5 are "quite unusual," and usually are only when people have anemia or other abnormalities of the red blood cells.

Remember these are the ranges obtained by the people who set the standards for A1C tests. Sadly, however, not every laboratory or home test kit meets those standards. Maybe the lab that Dr. Bernstein uses doesn't. Does yours? Curt suggests that you ask your doctor if the lab running the test uses a method that is certified by the NGSP.

The first conclusion of the research for me is that we need to shoot for a normal A1C level of no more than 6.0 instead of trying what may be impossible, a level of 4.2 to 4.6.

However, an A1C level of 6.0 can cause people who take insulin injections or one of the sulfonylureas to go hypo. That's why the American Diabetes Associations sets the goal conservatively at 7.0.

Still, a lower A1C level among people who take those medications is possible without hypos. Dr. Bernstein has amply shown that both in his own life and that of thousands of his patients.

And certainly, for those of us who don't take insulin injections or one of the sulfonylureas we can set our goal even lower.

That's because we have to understand the different between normal and optimal. For example, two-thirds of all American adults are overweight. Thus it has become normal in our culture to be overweight. Likewise, the average American gets little exercise, and that is also normal. We know that being a chubby couch potato isn't optimal.

"I'm going to aim to be in the lower end of the normal A1C range," my favorite CDE tells me, "because that is what I believe is optimal for human health." And now that I know my A1C is in the normal range I am still going to do my best to bring it down as much as possible. Are you?

fgummett
08-04-2009, 08:34 AM
In the comments below this article I found a response from Dr Bernstien...

Hi David

If you had contacted me with a draft of your A1c article I would have shown you the flaw.

See DIABETES CARE : Vol 25 pp 275-278 feb 2002 for an accurate formula converting A1C to avg BG. It's also in my book and gives an avg BG of 136 for an A1c of 6%.

An A1c of 4.7 would give an average BG of 90mg/dl

It seems to me that BGs of the US population are running too high and are PATHOLOGIC not NORMAL. Average does not mean Normal. Just look at body weight, metabolic syndrome Etc

I'd be glad to discuss with you the problems associated with the new conversion formulas from A1c to average BG performed by David Nathan’s ADA group

Dick

PS – Note that A1cs in my book are based on avg BGs of young adults in the 1980s when people were healthier. I pointed out that we are all entitled to those BGs and they are attainable if you don’t have gastroparesis and untreated CHO craving.

RICHARD K BERNSTEIN, MD, FACE, FACN, FCCWS

To some extent he mirrors my own concerns about the limitations of the methodology used to establish "normal". Only 29 people tested in one area of the USA and what BG levels did their GTTs show and who decided that these were non-diabetic levels? For example was the GTT based on ADA standards?

Gozelle
08-04-2009, 08:48 AM
Hi Fgummett:

Are you saying that if I go from 6.1 to 5.5 that I should not be satified? (Have not done that yet, but it is my goal.)

Type 2

fgummett
08-04-2009, 08:57 AM
I haven't voiced any opinion in this thread as to what I consider a truly normal A1C. My comments so far only raised questions about the methodology used by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program to establish a "normal" range.

Bu to answer your question more thoroughly I'll borrow another quote from David Mendosa in the comments following the above article: I purposefully refrained from recommending a specific goal. I wanted only to clarify what a normal level is. Still, we have to go beyond normal to optimal.

Certainly we need to reduce our A1C levels to 6.0 or below. That's now clearly established as the normal range, in spite of what our good friend maintains.

But normal is not good enough. It's not optimal. And optimal is as low as possible. How low that is depends on the individual. For each of us, I am convinced that it is somewhere between 4.5 and about 5.5.

Josselyn
08-04-2009, 08:58 AM
GREAT article (and response inclusion from Bernstein). Thanks for sharing, Fgummett!

Gary_W
08-04-2009, 09:01 AM
Hi Frank,

Thanks for the article. Interesting stuff.

I was under the impression that, provided you got to 6.0 and under, there were no proven health benefits of going lower. I am, as ever, willing to be put straight on this :)

I'm an insulin-using T1 on no other meds, and over the last two years my HBA1c has varied between 5.8 and 6.2. It's currently 6.2. As far as day to day health goes, I'm actually keeping better than I was down at the 5.8 as I was sailing a little close to the wind down there. Hypos are pretty rare for me now with the 6.2 HBA1c.

Gary

fgummett
08-04-2009, 09:01 AM
Thanks Josselyn... I'm just trying to keep the discussion open... clearly the idea of optimal has to allow for other factors such as risk management, practicability and quality of life.

fgummett
08-04-2009, 09:07 AM
I was under the impression that, provided you got to 6.0 and under, there were no proven health benefits of going lower.Unfortunately Gary you are of course right! There seems to be little evidence either way on this subject and I can't see a double-blind random-controlled study being set up to determine this any time soon... too many ethical issues apart from anything else. REDLAN gave some useful information on the lack of consensus in another recent thread : ...What the DCCT showed was that 7.4% was much better than 9.0%. What they didn't show was that going from 7.4% to 6.0% gave the same benefit. In fact no study to my knowledge has demonstrated such a benefit. In the case of type 1 it is assumed but certainly not remotely proven

The evidence comes from retinopathy in the DCCT, which showed a more or less linear relationship between A1c and retinopathy with no apparent cut off point - hence the less than 6.0% recommendations. What you need to understand however is that retinopathy (or at least the early changes of) are very sensitive to blood glucose levels, which is why they used it. It's not necessarily an indicator of reduction in risk for other complications such as nephropathy or atherosclerosis.

The benefits of A1c reductions are even less clear cut in the case of type 2 - taking lots of drugs to lower A1c is not necessarily a good thing. What UKPDS demonstrated was that 7.0% was better than 9.0% (controlling blood pressure was better still). Studies after this looking at much tighter control have had problems with excess mortality in the control arm (this issue is not entirely resolved by the recent meta analysis)

So when science lets me down I tend to opt for the common-sense approach... which suggest to me that -- all other things being equal -- the closer I can get to truly normal the better.

That is why I put so much emphasis on trying to determine exactly what is the truly normal range BUT again I feel the need to emphasize, that does not mean the truly normal is safely achievable by everyone.

Gary_W
08-04-2009, 09:18 AM
Unfortunately Gary you are of course right! There seems to be little evidence either way on this subject and I can't see a double-blind random-controlled study being set up to determine this any time soon... too many ethical issues apart from anything else. REDLAN gave some useful information on the lack of consensus in another recent thread.

So when science lets me down I tend to opt for the common-sense approach... which suggest to me that -- all other things being equal -- the closer I can get to truly normal the better.

That is why I put so much emphasis on trying to determine exactly what is the truly normal range BUT again I feel the need to emphasize, that does not mean the truly normal is safely achievable by everyone.

Thanks for the reply Frank; I can see where you are coming from.

My goals in the diabetes line are usually tempered by the 'how does it affect me on a daily basis' question. I'm fortunate to be able to keep an HBA1c at a level that (AFAIK) will not cause me any harm vs a lower one whilst being able to eat a diet that suits me and keep out of the hypo territory. If I came across compelling evidence that 5.0 is going to bring major long-term benefits vs 6.0 then I'd rethink my stratergy and throw some effort in the direction of getting there. As it is, I'll hang around where I am; there's lots of things we do as humans that take us outside our 'normal' range of things which don't seem to have any bad effects. Lots of folks have a drink which takes the blood alcohol levels above 'normal', but as long as it doesn't go too far outside the range then it seems to be no great disaster or even (some would say) beneficial :)

yannah
08-04-2009, 10:23 AM
thanks, I get confused about this. alot.

that was very helpful.


but my really cool ac does not reflect that I spend very little time under a hunred and that could matter to beta cells at least.

I am not a big beleiver that AC tells the whole story.

fgummett
08-04-2009, 10:29 AM
I am not a big believer that AC tells the whole story.

It is a useful tool but -- as you rightly say -- it is not the whole picture:

A1C (hemoglobin A1C, glycosylated hemoglobin, Hgb A1C, HbA1C) - Hemoglobin is the substance in red blood cells that carries oxygen to the cells. Glucose (the main sugar your body uses for fuel) attaches to red blood cells. The A1C test measures the amount of glucose that has become attached to your red blood cells throughout their (3 to 4 month) lifetime. A1C goes by a number of other names including hemoglobin A1C, glycosylated hemoglobin, HgbA1C and HbA1C. It is important to note that A1C levels are measured in different units and on a different scale than is blood glucose (though thay may change in the future).

How important is it to monitor and optimize your A1C level? Well, how about this; the UKPDS study showed that - and this is astounding - a one percent drop in A1C (which is about a 2 mmol/L drop in your average blood sugar level) reduces the likelihood of your developing microvascular complications (that is; eye, kidney and nerve) damage by THIRTY SEVEN PERCENT. That's incredible, isn't it? Don't know your own A1C? Better find out, eh? It is important to bear in mind that A1C levels do not tell the whole story about your blood glucose control. For example you could have lots of lows and lots of highs and have an excellent "average" blood glucose (and hence an excellent A1C)..sort of like the old expression that if you put one foot in ice water and one foot in boiling water on average you feel fine! Dr Ian Blumer -- Key Definitions -- A1C (http://www.ourdiabetes.com/key-definitions.htm)

yannah
08-04-2009, 10:34 AM
this is one of the Many reasons I am angry that docotors and more frequently not even prescribing meters for t2,s. and when they do they say "check once a day, or 2ice a week"

this is what they need to say and don't. (My podiatrist does everytime I see him) "In order for you to stay healthy a long time, you need to keep your BS between 70-130. Here is a meter. test."

although I am too high for a good fasting number, no matter what, I also have had good enough control for great PP numbers. so basically I remain steady. Which my opthamologist said is a big plus for eyes.

all of this, outside of the AC box. I do not know much about insulin, but this is why I said NO to glipizide, and control with diet instead.

fgummett
08-04-2009, 10:43 AM
I also suspect that some Doctors rely on A1C too much as a fall -back to the days when the Doctor managed the Diabetes and we were supposed to be good compliant passive patients :T Self-monitoring of BG (SMBG) with home BG meters gives us most of the feedback we need to manage our own D, but A1C can still be useful... for example: someone who tests multiple times during every day (only during waking hours) but their average BG does not fit in with the A1C result... this might be a clue that something unaccounted-for was happening overnight... or that they were missing spikes/troughs during the day.

yannah
08-04-2009, 10:47 AM
I agree with this. I still think it is very useful.

but alot of people with T2, just get an AC and docotr adjust meds and tells them nothing and talks about nothing.

and that t2 gets sicker faster.

I like knowing my AC, it is always higher than I think it should be. and so it is good to know it.

just too much reliance on it, with little discussion around it.

BS sugar logs should still be done. and shown to a doctor, that way everyone is involved, testing is done, and discussions take place.

art
08-04-2009, 11:19 AM
OK

For discussion purposes.
I'm 63 and not over weight. I love food in all it's shapes and sizes. I know I can't eat the entire grocery store anymore. I try to keep my carb intake below 100 a day.
I exercise and take my Meds, Janumet.

Ready????
If my A1C is below 7 and my average BG below 135 I don't care about anything else.
I have a life to live and a life style I like. I will not shoot for and A1C of 5.x. I don't care. To achiever the 5's and "gasp" the 4's is not something I will ever consider.

Will I die a little sooner? Maybe. But if I'm enjoying myself vs. eating salads and soy, I'll take the party.

In case you haven't figured it out I'm not a big believer of any medical authority coming up with "absolutes".

Anybody for a light beer??


Art

fgummett
08-04-2009, 11:23 AM
I respect your choice Art and of course you have that option.

I'm certainly not trying to force an absolute value on anybody...the idea of optimal has to allow for other factors such as risk management, practicability and quality of life

I like to make my choices informed ones... for me that means gathering the data and establishing the facts under consideration :) That doesn't mean I always make the optimal decision from all points of view.

I don't see it as a Medical Authority setting this value but rather Mother Nature... the human body has evolved to work within certain homeostatic ranges -- BG is one of these, along with Core Temperature, pH and so on.

Make mine a dry red wine and you're on... Cheers! :beer:

fgummett
08-04-2009, 01:08 PM
I realise I may come across like a BG control freak but just to keep this idea of life-choices and compromise in perspective I wanted to point out that my last 3 A1C's have been 5.4%, 5.5% and 6.0% in November, February and April respectively.

I am on an insulin pump and I know without doubt that I could have much tighter BG control BUT I also know what higher insulin levels do to my body especially in terms of storing fat... so as I continue to burn fat I have opted to minimise my exogenous insulin use in order to maximise the time I spend in fat burning mode -- I am Type 2 so there is no risk of DKA with this approach. Basically I am using exogenous insulin to counter my Dawn Phenomenon which is still present even with very low-carbs... proving that the body makes it's own Glucose from Protein.

matingara
08-04-2009, 04:58 PM
Basically I am using exogenous insulin to counter my Dawn Phenomenon which is still present even with very low-carbs... proving that the body makes it's own Glucose from Protein.

Frank, what do you consider to be DP? i.e. at what level of FASTING BGL do you become unhappy?

i woke this morning with a 108. for me (at the moment) i am happy with a FBGL of 126 or less. i can correct and get back into the 80s/90s soon after getting up.

that said, i also have the odd 140 upon waking. but i am not too fussed about these at the moment.

:)

-- Joel.

fgummett
08-04-2009, 08:32 PM
A year ago I was using around 110u TDD basal + bolus to manage my BG and had a decent A1C.

Today I am using a TDD of 8.25u all basal (no bolus) and nearly all of that is between 03:30 and 06:00 each morning.

On a couple of recent occasions I have tried a few days without the pump and my Fasting BG has been around 7.5 - 8mmol/l (135-144mg/dl)... with the pump my Fasting BG is consistently below 7mmol/l (126mg/dl)

As above, I know that I could increase the exogenous insulin and gain tighter BG control but I want to balance that against staying in fat-burning mode as much of the day as possible. Of note my urine shows the most ketones late afternoon and evening... when the pump has been at its lowest basal rate for the longest time